보험회사간 상호협정에 관한 법적 규제와 그 문제점
Regulatory Issues on Mutual Agreements among Insurers
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Section 125 of Insurance Business Act(IBA) provides that mutual agreements among Insurers are subject to the approval of national financial authority(Financial Services Commission) with a prior consultation of Fair Trade Commission. Section 58 of Antimonopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(AMA) also provides that business acts based upon statutory basis are immune from any kind of Antitrust enforcement, and it is understood that this policy is similar to the state action doctrine of United States. Herein Korean literature and courts construe that concerted acts of insurers based upon such mutual agreements as provided by §125 of IBA enjoy broad immunity from antitrust enforcement, especially form the collusion prohibition. Due to repeated revison of AMA, every market and every business activities in Korea are subject to the general enforcement of competition law and policy, and insurance industry is no exception. In these context, both provisions of IBA and AMA aforesaid are criticized that they are allowing too much freedom and are not providing any substantial limitations for the proposed immunity. When we consider the relevant developments in major jurisdictions of the world, especially those of US, Germany and Japan, provisions aforenamed are outdated and are in need of general overhaul both in legislation and enforcement. Concerning Section 125 of IBA, the author proposes a limited form of immunity, for example limiting the types of insurance to which concerted acts are indispensable, and requiring more rigid qualifications for the approval of Financial Services Commission. The author also recommends abolishment of Par. II, Section 125 which mandate FNS to order insurers to conclude a new agreement and also to coerce an outsider to enter into the mutual agreement. Meanwhile the wording of 'business of inurers' in §125 of IBA should be construed that it is in line with essential aspect of insurance, the pooling and transfer of risks.
Abstract
Section 125 of Insurance Business Act(IBA) provides that mutual agreements among Insurers are subject to the approval of national financial authority(Financial Services Commission) with a prior consultation of Fair Trade Commission. Section 58 of Antimonopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(AMA) also provides that business acts based upon statutory basis are immune from any kind of Antitrust enforcement, and it is understood that this policy is similar to the state action doctrine of United States. Herein Korean literature and courts construe that concerted acts of insurers based upon such mutual agreements as provided by §125 of IBA enjoy broad immunity from antitrust enforcement, especially form the collusion prohibition. Due to repeated revison of AMA, every market and every business activities in Korea are subject to the general enforcement of competition law and policy, and insurance industry is no exception. In these context, both provisions of IBA and AMA aforesaid are criticized that they are allowing too much freedom and are not providing any substantial limitations for the proposed immunity. When we consider the relevant developments in major jurisdictions of the world, especially those of US, Germany and Japan, provisions aforenamed are outdated and are in need of general overhaul both in legislation and enforcement. Concerning Section 125 of IBA, the author proposes a limited form of immunity, for example limiting the types of insurance to which concerted acts are indispensable, and requiring more rigid qualifications for the approval of Financial Services Commission. The author also recommends abolishment of Par. II, Section 125 which mandate FNS to order insurers to conclude a new agreement and also to coerce an outsider to enter into the mutual agreement. Meanwhile the wording of 'business of inurers' in §125 of IBA should be construed that it is in line with essential aspect of insurance, the pooling and transfer of risks.
참고문헌 (13)
- Competition : Final Report of the Sector Inquiry, , ~, pp.Memo (2007), 07[DOI]
- Craig A. Berrington, "Congress, once Again, debates insurer's antitrust exemption under McCarran Ferguson Act, Legal Backgrounder" (2007), Washington Legal Foundation
- Joseph P. Bauer, "The McCarran-Ferguson Exemption from the Antitrust Laws for the Business of Insurance: History, Scope and the State Action Doctrine", Korean Competition Law Association International Symposium on Insurance Industry and Antitrust, pp.123~124 (2008)
- "The McCarran-Ferguson Act: Implication of Repealing the Insurer's Antitrust Exemption on S.1525 and S.2509 before the Senate Judiciary Committee", 109th Cong., 2nd Sess (2006)
- Weller, "The McCarran-Ferguson Act's Antitrust Exemption for Insurance: Language, History and Policy", Duke Law Journal, pp.593~ (1978)
- 권오승, "경제법", pp.134~135 (2008)
- 성대규, "한국보험업법", pp.386~391 (2004), 동원
- 신동권, "독점규제법", pp.1057~1058 (2011), 박영사
- 양명조, "경제법강의", pp.306~ (2009), 신조사
- 이성남, "보험업법", pp.338~339 (2003), 행림미디어
- 이호영, "독점규제법 제3판", pp.25~26 (2011), 홍문사
- 이황, "보험산업에 대한 공정거래법 적용의 범위와 한계- 대법원 2006. 11. 23. 선고 2004두8323 판결을 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 18, pp.340~406 (2008), 한국경쟁법학회
- 정호열, "경제법 개정 제3판 발행", pp.90~ (2010), 박영사
